Mary

[fejao]

Catholic Mary Or Co-Redemptrix or Mediatrix Of All Graces And Advocate or Queen Of Heaven​

Sorry to anyone who was offended by my link, it was posted for information. God Bless.

Fejao x x

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

The Catholic Mary, IS the Mary of the Bible!

She is the Queen of Heaven!

John 19:26 - Jesus makes Mary the Mother of us all as He dies on the Cross by saying "behold your mother." Jesus did not say "John, behold your mother" because he gave Mary to all of us, his beloved disciples. All the words that Jesus spoke on Cross had a divine purpose. Jesus was not just telling John to take care of his mother.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse proves the meaning of John 19:26. The "woman's" (Mary's) offspring are those who follow Jesus. She is our Mother and we are her offspring in Jesus Christ. The master plan of God's covenant love for us is family. But we cannot be a complete family with the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Christ without the Motherhood of Mary.

John 2:3 - this is a very signifcant verse in Scripture. As our mother, Mary tells all of us to do whatever Jesus tells us. Further, Mary's intercession at the marriage feast in Cana triggers Jesus' ministry and a foreshadowing of the Eucharistic celebration of the Lamb. This celebration unites all believers into one famiy through the marriage of divinity and humanity.

John 2:7 - Jesus allows His mother to intercede for the people on His behalf, and responds to His mother's request by ordering the servants to fill the jars with water.

Psalm 45:9 - the psalmist teaches that the Queen stands at the right hand of God. The role of the Queen is important in God's kingdom. Mary the Queen of heaven is at the right hand of the Son of God.

1 Kings 2:17, 20 - in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, the King does not refuse his mother. Jesus is the new Davidic King, and He does not refuse the requests of his mother Mary, the Queen.

1 Kings 2:18 - in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, the Queen intercedes on behalf of the King's followers. She is the Queen Mother (or "Gebirah"). Mary is our eternal Gebirah.

1 Kings 2:19 - in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom the King bows down to his mother and she sits at his right hand. We, as children of the New Covenant, should imitate our King and pay the same homage to Mary our Mother. By honoring Mary, we honor our King, Jesus Christ.

1 Kings 15:13 - the Queen Mother is a powerful position in Israel's royal monarchy. Here the Queen is removed from office. But now, the Davidic kingdom is perfected by Jesus, and our Mother Mary is forever at His right hand.

2 Chron. 22:10 - here Queen Mother Athalia destroys the royal family of Judah after she sees her son, King Ahaziah, dead. The Queen mother plays a significant role in the kingdom.

Neh. 2:6 - the Queen Mother sits beside the King. She is the primary intercessor before the King.

 

[He put me back together]

Hi, Jeff. I believe we met each other in another forum around nearly the same subject it’s nice to be with you again. This seems to be a nice point to jump in, as I think you’ve laid out most of your stack of scriptures for comment...actually, I think you laid a few of them aside in the other forum but it’ll be nice to draw up a summary scripturally, because the scriptures are the heart and the whole of the matter, as we concluded last time. Hey, I know it's long, but so is your list of scripture



John 19:

25 And by the stake of Yeshua stood His mother, and His mother’s sister, Miryam the wife of Qlophah, and Miryam from Magdala.

26 Then Yeshua, seeing His mother and the taught one whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, see your son!”

27 Then TO THE TAUGHT ONE He said, “See, Your mother!” And from that hour that taught one took her to his own home.

As stated before, there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that anyone can read this scripture rationally and come to the conclusion that Jesus was speaking to anyone but John and Mary. Be honest with yourself, and read the scripture for what it says. It is clear and obvious here--do you claim that John was mistaken about to whom Jesus was speaking? If so, are you correct, then, John being wrong, who was there when Jesus said it?



Rev 12—Well, I cannot jump you and gripe about everything being obvious and explicit in this passage, because symbols by definition are not explicit. Ambiguity isn't just the nature of the beast when it comes to symbolism—it's part of the very definition. So, that peace having been made, what is this business in verse 6 of the woman fleeing to the wilderness after her child ascends to heaven? This is certainly not Mary's fleeing from Herod to Mitsrayim, as Jesus has ascended already. The dragon that was waiting to devour the child that the woman was giving birth to (who as you agree is almost inarguably the Messiah if this scripture is taken chronologically, as he is caught up to Elohim and His throne) is thrown out of heaven after Salvation is already won—

10 "And I heard a loud voice saying in the heaven, "Now have come the deliverance and the power and the authority of His Messiah, for the accuser of our brothers, who accused them before our Elohim day and night, has been thrown down. 11 And they overcame him because of the Blood of the Lamb, and because of the Word of their witness, and they did not love their lives to the death."

Mary was already gone when John wrote this letter. The woman escaping to the wilderness in verse 6 and verse 14 cannot be Mary's fleet from Herod, nor can it be any ascension to heaven, as the Dragon who is thrown to the Earth continues to attack her. In addition this is a continuing ordeal, not a finished event, and not to be separated from the beast that arises from the sea, immediately following, in chapter 13. It is clear by reading the scriptures rather than assigning what one wants to what, that this woman is not just Mary, but a nation of people. The nation of people from whom the Messiah came….well, I'll stop there as this is not a Revelation discussion. If you want to take this chapter chronologically, this is the way it is. If you don't want to take it chronologically, well, you have another more difficult argument on your hands. I'm game for a round of devil's advocate if you like



John 2—Every scripture is significant, but this one isn't even relevant to the subject. Mary didn't intercede for us—she interceded for a small group of people, because she knew what Jesus could do. The woman from Cannan interceded for her daughter, a single person, in Matt 15—is she our mother as well? Should we pray to her? Should we pray to the Centurion, who interceded on behalf of his servant? Should we pray to the man who intercedes for his son in Matt 17? What about the men who brought the lame and the blind to Jesus? The boy who brought Jesus the fish that fed thousands?



This passage is not the beginning of Jesus' ministry, in any way one looks at it. If you count the beginning of his ministry as the beginning of his works and teachings, we know from chapter 1 that Jesus was already teaching, and from chapter 2 that he already had disciples. If miracles mark the beginning of his ministry, we've already seen one at his baptism. If it is determined by the words Jesus spoke, verse 4 says

"Yeshua said to her, 'Woman, what is that to Me and to you? My hour has not yet come.'" This instance is not the beginning of Jesus' ministry, nor is it any gathering of the children of God into one family—it's just a wedding of two Jews at sometime around 30 AD. Jesus responds to many people's request for aid in the gospels. Should we pray to all of them?



Psalm 45 says absolutely nothing about Mary ascending to the right hand of God, symbolically or literally. It just simply isn't there.



Your Queen Mother verses—this is an incredible stretch of any imagination. Mary is at the right hand of the father, and we should pray to her, because David, like Jesus, follows the command of God to honor your mother? Surely, a monarch is a good symbol of Christ's reign, especially to people in Biblical times, but monarchy is not even the government that God wanted Israel to have in the first place! Samuel 8 is very clear about this. God didn't want a monarch in Israel—the people wanted a monarch, and God allowed it. Samuel warned them about how much trouble a monarch would be, but they insisted. The position and power of the Queen Mother or any other member of the royal family in Israel's old kingdom is not a reference for Mary's position in the Kingdom of Heaven.



Elohim did not come from Mary. Mary came from Elohim. We came from Elohim, not Mary. Mary is our blessed sister in Christ—she is not our mother. She was baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire on the day of Pentecost, like all those in the upper room, and she was a prime example of how we should live our lives—humbly, and praising God at every instance. She was a married woman. After Jesus was born, she had sex with Joseph and bore children. To insist otherwise is absurd. While I have no scriptures to prove it, I believe she was the most virtuous woman to ever live. Her virtuosity among women, however, did not save her. She needed a savior, as we all do. The Son she bore was that savior. Without the man she bore, we are all lost.



But while Mary was Jesus' mother in the flesh, she was not Jesus' mother in the Spirit, any more than any believer.

Mark 3
32 And a crowd was sitting around Him. And they said to Him, "See, Your mother and Your brothers are outside seeking You." 33 But He answered them, saying, "Who is My mother, or My brothers?" 34 And looking about on those sitting round Him, He said, "See My mother and My brothers! 35 For whoever does the desire of Elohim is My brother and My sister and mother."

Are we to pray to everyone who does the desire of Elohim? If so, why does Mary take priority?



Praying to Mary is not worshipping her—praying to God is not worshipping God, either. Worship and prayer are not the same. But calling Mary "our mother," and calling her "the queen of heaven" IS DEIFYING HER! This type of theology, with a queen of heaven and a mother of the human race with perpetual virginity is neither Messianic nor Jewish, but it is Pagan, and it existed long before Mary was born. I love you, Jeff, and I will not refuse to call you my brother, but I will be blunt with you. The picture that you paint of Mary is not the Mary of the Bible. It is closer in resemblance to Deanna, Gaia, and Venus. Listen to yourself! Mary is not the queen of heaven—she is a blessed heir to the kingdom, like all believers. She will rise with us in the resurrection, and with us she will sing praises to God in the kingdom, when we are all with him. She is not our mother; she is our sister. To paint her differently is to insult her. Are we to sing of her, to teach of her? Absolutely. Are we to give her praise in our liturgy, hailing her queen of heaven? Well, what did Jesus say in the matter?



Luke 11:27 And it came to be, as He was saying this, a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which You sucked!" 28 But He said, "Blessed rather are those hearing the Word of Elohim and watching over it!"



Ok, that's the end of the incredibly long dribble—Blessings to all brothers and sisters.

 

[Oblio]

After Jesus was born, she had sex with Joseph and bore children.

Cite ?

 

[RaptureTicketHolder]

Cite ?

It is wonderful to see your posting, Together. Welcome to the discussion! Great lineup of vereses and I do believe its even better to have it all in context for consideration. It does help to add the entire scene (Christ's conversation to Mary and John) to one little snippet (What Christ says to Jon). This was wonderful to see!

Here is a very interesting study about Mary and her other children. I hope whomever is interested in this topic will take the time to read through it.

http://www.execulink.com/~wblank/maryoth.htm

Enjoy!
RTH

 

[RaptureTicketHolder]

Here is another study that seems to present the other "side" of the matter. I dont take on this opinion within my faith, but I can see how some could believe this:

http://www.geocities.com/militantis/blessedvirgin2.html

 

[Oblio]

Here is what the great orator and Bishop of the Chruch in Constantinople says concerning the ever VIrginity of the Theotokos:

---

And when he had taken her, "he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son."5 He hath here used the word "till," not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, "till"? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, "The raven returned not till the earth was dried up."6 And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, "From age until age Thou art,"7 not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, "In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,"8 it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word "till," to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference. Thus, what it was necessary for thee to learn of Him, this He Himself hath said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for thee to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord9 commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home?

How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, "For neither did His brethren believe in Him."10

---

The Gospel According to St. Matthew-Homily V

 

[RaptureTicketHolder]

So then here likewise, it uses the word "till," to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference.

So basically there is no firm, supported thought/scripture that says for sure Mary DID NOT have children after Christ - at least this is what you seem to be saying .....??

 

[He put me back together]

Cite ?

Well, it's a matter of sense--what we would want to look for is a site showing that she DIDN'T know her husband, as every healthy wife does. But, well, ok:
"And Yoseph, awaking from his sleep, did as the messenger of Yahweh commanded him and took his wife, but knew her not UNTIL she gave birth to her Son, the first-born. And he called His name Yeshua."
--Matt 1:25
Quite obviously, if Mary and Joseph never did what EVERY YOUNG, HEALTHY MARRIED COUPLE DOES, the scripture would say "...but knew her not. And he called His name Yeshua." The word "until" means that he DID know her. Even if this scripture didn't exist, it is absurd to insist that Mary and Joseph never did what married people do. They waited. This was a sacrifice for them; a very small price to pay for salvation and following the will of God, but a fasting nonetheless. Do you think that Joseph and Mary did not follow 1 Corinthians 7:5 after Jesus was born?

I'll check out the sites--everybody have a great day.

 

[He put me back together]

oops...I didn't see your other post till I had already written mine...sorry for the repetition, but the argument is still there. cya

 

[Oblio]

No, it is not quite obvious, and the Church has never believed such. As a matter of fact, neither did the founders of Protestantism, most notably Martin Luther. It is only in recent years that the Fundementalists,Evangelicals and Mainline liberals have begun to spread these mistruths that Mary the Theotokos was not Ever Virgin.

Why would the Theotokos at the Annunciation ask the Angel 'How can this be ?' if she were planning to come together with Joseph ? She was incredulous because she was planning to continue her pious celibate life in prayer and service to God, just as many monastics (married and single) have done since.

 

[RaptureTicketHolder]

is only in recent years that the Fundementalists,Evangelicals and Mainline liberals have begun to spread these mistruths that Mary the Theotokos was not Ever Virgin.

Ive attended church and remained in the faith of Christianity for well over 22 years. IN all that time Ive yet to have a pastor tell me Mary was not a virgin at the time of Christ's birth......

 

[Oblio]

Ever Virgin

A belief held by the majority of Christians for 2000 years (including the Reformers and Apostles and Apostolic Fathers). Not disputed until sometime in the past few hundred years. What has changed ?

 

[RaptureTicketHolder]

Alright, well I can see I need some understanding about your reference to ever....care to shed some light?

 

[Oblio]

The Ever Virgin Mother of God

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

I really think Martin Luther said it best:

"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of our Lord and still a virgin." - Martin Luther's Works, vol 11, pg 320

"Undoubtedly, there is no one so powerful that, depending on his own intelligence, without Scripture, he would maintain that she did not remain a virgin." - Martin Luther's Works, vol 11, pg 320

 

[nyj]

I really think Martin Luther said it best...

What about John Calvin, Jeff?

I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)

 

[nyj]

Or how about John Wesley?

I believe... he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. ("Letter to a Roman Catholic," quoted in A. C. Coulter, John Wesley, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964, 495)

 

[nyj]

Maybe Heinrich Bullinger?

'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.'
(In Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5)

 

[RaptureTicketHolder]

Interesting reading. Your link is very Catholic in nature, thanks for sharing it. If there ever was a case to be made for Mary as an object of worship, this site would definately be case in point.


Now, I skimmed this page, but I saw nothing, so far, to state that Mary didnt have kids or sex after Christ.

But, I did see some other things here that I have already pointed out..... again thanks for sharing!


St. Gregory of Nazianzus warns Cledonius: "if one does not acknowledge Mary as Theotokos, he is estranged from God" (Epist. 101). As a matter of fact, the name was widely used by the Fathers of the fourth century and possibly even, in the third

Gee I wonder what titles were used to name Mary two weeks after Christ was gone from earth - even 70 years - let along several centries later. It took, 2-3 centries later for man to come up with such slogans for Mary????

I really find fault in this:

Protestant theologians simply have nothing to say about her. Yet to ignore the Mother means to misinterpret the Son.

I dont see how Protestants ignore Mary. It is wise to say that if you dont agree with Catholic thought, ignorance is present? I dont think so.

I find this interesting:

In any case, it would have been a very impoverished idea if we regarded the Virgin Mother merely as a physical instrument of our Lord's taking flesh. Moreover, such a misinterpretation is formally excluded by the explicit teaching of the Church, attested from the earliest date: she was not just a "channel" through which the Heavenly Lord has come, but truly the mother of whom he took his humanity

An improverished idea....*lol* nkay.

I found the following quote to be the most important here, and speaks volumes of MANs involvment w/church over-ruling the Lords actual word on the matter:

A Catholic theologian is guided by the teaching authority of the Church, by its living tradition

Wow, if that doesnt say the Church is the be all and end all.

I enjoyed that link. Thank you!